Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Right to Constitutional Remedies, enshrined in Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, is a fundamental right itself, guaranteeing access to the judiciary when other fundamental rights are violated. This article empowers citizens to approach the Supreme Court and High Courts for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the ‘heart and soul’ of the Constitution, recognizing its crucial role in safeguarding individual liberties. The right isn’t merely procedural; it’s substantive, ensuring that fundamental rights aren’t rendered illusory due to a lack of effective enforcement mechanisms.
Scope and Types of Writs
Article 32 provides for five types of writs, each addressing a specific type of infringement of fundamental rights:
- Habeas Corpus: ‘You have the body’. Issued to secure the release of a person detained illegally. (e.g., Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 – passport impoundment case, though not directly habeas corpus, highlighted the importance of personal liberty).
- Mandamus: ‘We command’. Issued to compel a public authority to perform a legal duty. (e.g., State of U.P. v. Raj Narain, 1975 – regarding election disputes).
- Prohibition: Issued to prevent a lower court from exceeding its jurisdiction.
- Certiorari: Issued to quash an order passed by a lower court that violates fundamental rights or exceeds jurisdiction. (e.g., Golaknath v. State of Punjab, 1967 – challenged the constitutional validity of amendments restricting fundamental rights).
- Quo Warranto: ‘By what authority’. Issued to challenge the legality of a person’s claim to a public office.
Article 32 vs. Article 226
While both Article 32 (Supreme Court) and Article 226 (High Courts) provide remedies for fundamental rights violations, they differ in scope. Article 32 is exercisable only for fundamental rights, while Article 226 can be invoked for any purpose – including statutory violations. Article 32 is a guaranteed right, while Article 226 is a constitutional remedy. The Supreme Court has wider jurisdiction under Article 32.
| Feature | Article 32 (Supreme Court) | Article 226 (High Court) |
|---|---|---|
| Rights Covered | Fundamental Rights only | Fundamental Rights & other legal rights |
| Nature of Right | Guaranteed Fundamental Right | Constitutional Remedy |
| Jurisdiction | Wider, can transfer cases | Limited to territorial jurisdiction |
Limitations and Challenges
The Right to Constitutional Remedies isn’t absolute. Several limitations exist:
- Suspension during Emergency: Fundamental rights (except Articles 20 & 21) can be suspended during a national emergency (Article 352), impacting the enforceability of Article 32.
- Locus Standi: Generally, only the person whose fundamental right is violated can approach the court. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has relaxed this rule, allowing others to petition on behalf of marginalized groups.
- Alternative Remedy: Courts generally require petitioners to exhaust alternative remedies before approaching them directly.
- Delay and Pendency: A significant backlog of cases in courts leads to delays in justice delivery, diminishing the effectiveness of the remedy.
- Judicial Activism & Overreach: Concerns have been raised about judicial overreach through PILs, potentially encroaching on the legislative domain.
Recent challenges include the increasing use of preventive detention laws and the debate surrounding the scope of judicial review in matters of national security.
Evolution through Landmark Judgments
Several landmark judgments have shaped the interpretation and application of Article 32:
- K.C. Mathew v. State of Kerala (1964): Established the principle of judicial review.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Expanded the scope of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).
- Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): Upheld the validity of reservations but introduced the concept of the ‘creamy layer’.
Conclusion
The Right to Constitutional Remedies remains a cornerstone of India’s democratic framework, providing a vital check on executive and legislative power. While facing challenges like delays and potential overreach, its fundamental importance in protecting individual liberties cannot be overstated. Strengthening judicial infrastructure, promoting alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and fostering a culture of respect for fundamental rights are crucial for ensuring the continued effectiveness of this ‘heart and soul’ of the Constitution.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.